Are You with Us? Or are You against Us? is a term that has been misused by both Presidents and gang leaders. It can mean, "Are you amongst my followers? Or should I have you killed?" But then it can also mean, "Are you amongst my followers? Or are you neutral?"
Or does it?
When used by President Bush II and a so-called Creator who chose to emulate his hero of the moment (Bush II), it meant, "You are either with us, or will will hunt you down and kill you." (Or at least spout, so their rhetoric led many to believe.)
We of the Creativity Alliance are of another opinion. If you are not with us, you are certainly not necessarily against us; but then, we didn't originate that idea.
According to Christo/Judaic myth there was once a prophet named Jesus who was a descendent of a notorious womaniser and murderer of men, King David of Jerusalem (the mythical giant killer). One of the myths claim that this mythical man named Jesus once stated,
'He that is not with me, is against me.'Approximately forty years earlier, in a statement that was actually made by a then living man - and not a myth - was a saying that SHOULD have been taken up by the world, but was corrupted by Christinsanity:
'Who is not on any side, is on my side.' The speaker was Julius Caesar.
We know that Caesar's fictional counterpart Jesus, supposedly said, 'He that is not with me is against me.' Yet few realise today that another account of the same speech says,
'Who is not against us, he is for us.'Consider Caesar's factual rival, Pompeius' words: "I will count everyone who does not help the state as an enemy."
It's quite possible that Caesar's words were translated from the original Latin to ancient Greek and/or Aramaic. Which for political reasons at the time became twisted into the words of a fictional Jew, and then translated back to Greek and Latin again and eventually English. It's also possible that descendents of Caesar's legions took Caesar's account of the Roman civil war between Caesar and Pompei with them to their new life in the Middle East with Aramaic speaking wives and innocently but eventually corrupted the text over the next two generations. Combine that with the Jewish militancy of the time and you may have a local government that was prepared to look for the meekest and mildest of Jewish spookism to accept as a dominant religion in an effort to quell the revolting Jews - but I digress.
As Creators, we can read, learn, accept and move on. So it is for you to find and judge for yourself what is true and what is a Jewish sponsored fable to keep Roman men - modern White men under the thumb of Jewish superstition.
In typically oppositional Christinsane terms: Are you with logic? Or are you against logic?
In realistic terms: If you are not on any side, then you are on our side - the side of logic, reality and the future. :D
Or, at least there's hope for you yet.
@Cailen.REF: http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/w%26w.html#side (http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/w%26w.html#side)
Jesus was Caesar
I stick with a Roman before a jew - we know the jewish tale - anything connected with the jew is poison. God is logic ... Logic is god, that how I see it